5 ms·

I'm not sure that blockbuster-type movies could get funded using kickstarter-type funding. Even if they could receive the needed funding, I don't entirely like

I'm not sure that blockbuster-type movies could get funded using kickstarter-type funding. Even if they could receive the needed funding, I don't entirely like the idea of moving to that model. Currently, producers front the initial money (and thus carry the risks and rewards) of the movie. After it's made, I can then decide based on trailers and reviews whether I want to spend money on it. Instead, with the Kickstarter approach, I need to front the money based on some short trailer and description for a movie that may or may not be finished and which I have very little information on whether I'll like the end product. I've mentioned movies here, but it extends to music, TV shows etc. I like the idea of Kickstarter and crowd funding, but I'm a bit too risk averse to fund many things.

vibrunazo 14y ago
I lost count how many times I wasted my precious money on an expensive movie ticket, on the fanciest theater around, for a heavily hiped movie. Just to walk out pissed off at how could they make it so bad. I'm sure so have you! So there is already the risk of losing your investment on crap today. I honestly don't see the difference :-P
- Brashman 14y ago
  It's happened on occasion, but for the most part by looking at reviews I get a decent opinion of whether I would like the movie. I can think of only 3 movies in the last couple years that I regretted seeing, 2 of which I went to mostly because other people were looking for something to do. With an unmade movie, reviews of the finished movie don't exist. In addition, the movie may not even be finished.
polshaw 14y ago
>I'm not sure that blockbuster-type movies could get funded using kickstarter-type funding. I agree (for now), but i'm not sure this would be a bad thing. You might not be able to make Transformers 3, but you could make most (all?) of Hitchcock's movies. Extravagance is a fairly recent trend in movies, and-- whilst i love some of the high budget movies-- i'm not at all certain it provides a great deal of benefit as a whole; the story trumps the effects.
- tzs 14y ago
  > I agree (for now), but i'm not sure this would be a bad thing. You might not be able to make Transformers 3, but you could make most (all?) of Hitchcock's movies. In addition to "Transformers 3", we also might not have: WALL-E: $180 million Toy Story 3: $200 million Up: $175 million How to Train Your Dragon: $165 million Could these same stories be told more cheaply? Sure...but I think they would have just been good stories then, not masterpieces.
  - vibrunazo 14y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting Again, you'd have a hard time coming up with empirical data to support the hypothesis that Hollywood movies wouldn't exist without copyright enforcement. That's speculation with zero evidence.
    - CJefferson 14y ago
      I would suggest those who want to completely require the rules of copyright are the ones who should come up with data that the creation of art would not be fundamentally damaged.
    - tzs 14y ago
      Lets do a quick back of the envelope guesstimate. Around 450 people worked on WALL-E. These movies take years to make, but I'd guess that many of those people are only in on part of it, so I'll guess that at any given time, only 1/4 of those people are working on it. Figure that an employee costs $100k per year in pay, benefits, and overhead (I expect that is a low estimate on average). That gives $11 million per year, just for having the necessary employees. I believe these movies take about 4 years, so that brings WALL-E to an estimated $44 million, just for employees. I suspect I underestimated pay, but I may have overestimated the fraction of that 450 working at any given time. Anyone in the industry reading this who can give better data? Now throw in equipment, facilities, promotion, and so on, and it is not hard to believe pretty big legitimate budgets.

vibrunazo 14y ago

I lost count how many times I wasted my precious money on an expensive movie ticket, on the fanciest theater around, for a heavily hiped movie. Just to walk out pissed off at how could they make it so bad. I'm sure so have you! So there is already the risk of losing your investment on crap today. I honestly don't see the difference :-P

Brashman 14y ago
It's happened on occasion, but for the most part by looking at reviews I get a decent opinion of whether I would like the movie. I can think of only 3 movies in the last couple years that I regretted seeing, 2 of which I went to mostly because other people were looking for something to do. With an unmade movie, reviews of the finished movie don't exist. In addition, the movie may not even be finished.

polshaw 14y ago

>I'm not sure that blockbuster-type movies could get funded using kickstarter-type funding. I agree (for now), but i'm not sure this would be a bad thing. You might not be able to make Transformers 3, but you could make most (all?) of Hitchcock's movies. Extravagance is a fairly recent trend in movies, and-- whilst i love some of the high budget movies-- i'm not at all certain it provides a great deal of benefit as a whole; the story trumps the effects.

tzs 14y ago
> I agree (for now), but i'm not sure this would be a bad thing. You might not be able to make Transformers 3, but you could make most (all?) of Hitchcock's movies. In addition to "Transformers 3", we also might not have: WALL-E: $180 million Toy Story 3: $200 million Up: $175 million How to Train Your Dragon: $165 million Could these same stories be told more cheaply? Sure...but I think they would have just been good stories then, not masterpieces.
- vibrunazo 14y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting Again, you'd have a hard time coming up with empirical data to support the hypothesis that Hollywood movies wouldn't exist without copyright enforcement. That's speculation with zero evidence.
  - CJefferson 14y ago
    I would suggest those who want to completely require the rules of copyright are the ones who should come up with data that the creation of art would not be fundamentally damaged.
  - tzs 14y ago
    Lets do a quick back of the envelope guesstimate. Around 450 people worked on WALL-E. These movies take years to make, but I'd guess that many of those people are only in on part of it, so I'll guess that at any given time, only 1/4 of those people are working on it. Figure that an employee costs $100k per year in pay, benefits, and overhead (I expect that is a low estimate on average). That gives $11 million per year, just for having the necessary employees. I believe these movies take about 4 years, so that brings WALL-E to an estimated $44 million, just for employees. I suspect I underestimated pay, but I may have overestimated the fraction of that 450 working at any given time. Anyone in the industry reading this who can give better data? Now throw in equipment, facilities, promotion, and so on, and it is not hard to believe pretty big legitimate budgets.